He then contacted my Canadian hosting provider about it and had them take my site down today. (I’ve since gotten it back up, obviously!)

The post is about an Ars Technica article that falsely claims that this article (.onion link requires TOR) contains death threats against Katherine Bolan Forrest, who is the judge in the “Silk Road” case against Ross Ulbricht. There is no death threat in there. It’s not nice, but it isn’t a death threat either. Ars Technica lied.

For the sake of ease, completeness, and transparency (something that is completely foreign to government), I posted the entire unredacted, uncensored article (it’s not hard to find – more info below). This seems to have pissed off the US Marshals who sent this to my hosting provider:

Please be advised that the personal security of a United States Marshals Service protected person has been threatened by way of dox. United States District Court Judge Katherine Bolan Forrest’s restricted personal identifiable information, in violation of the Court Security Act of 2007 has been made public on the below listed website that is connected to GoDaddy as the sponsoring registrar. I am requesting that this restricted personal information be immediately removed from the website in order to ensure that no further threats to the security of Judge Forrest are carried out. I am also requesting that a representative from the legal department contact me as soon as possible regarding this sensitive matter.

This is nothing more than security theatre and scare-mongering. If anyone were to do anything to that judge, it would already have happened.

Unless Maxime Vales is psychic, I really have no clue how he could possibly abide by the T&C and know what was on that page, or any page at Cynic.me for that matter.

CENSORSHIP & CHILLING EFFECTS

There is no law against publishing publicly available information, which the information at the links above is.

This does nothing to protect the judge at all as I’ve outline above just how simple it is to find the information. A blog dedicated to technology, voluntaryism, and personal points of interest that has near zero readership except for a few popular posts isn’t going to make the smallest impact at all.

This is merely overreach and an attempt to scare me and others from publishing information that the US police state finds inconvenient.

If this can happen to me, it can happen to you. Whether or not you agree with anything I say isn’t particularly relevant. The point to free speech is to tolerate dissenting opinions.

HE SHOULD SIMPLY HAVE CONTACTED ME!

Maxime Vales is really a bit of a douche. Instead of contacting me and asking nicely, he went nuclear to have my site taken down.

But I most certainly would have taken it down had he just asked. Albeit, I would have to charge him a reasonable service fee. I think 144,341 bitcoins plus an additional 29,659 bitcoins as an “administrative fee” wouldbereasonable. (Ross certainly wouldn’t need to worry about paying for his defense anymore.)

THE FBI DOXED ROSS ULBRICHT FIRST!

0

Given the recent events in Canada, I am emailing my MP with the following letter, and opening it up for anyone that would like to use it or part of it to email their own MP.

Hello Gary,

I am concerned about recent events causing hysteria and fostering bad ideas like “preventative measures” to detain people suspected of possibly doing something at some untold time in the future. I am equally concerned about the expanding security/surveillance state.

Our liberty is not on the negotiating table. Patrick Henry had a few good words to say about that. But we can look closer to home for thoughts on the topic.

Wilfrid Laurier phrased that using “at all cost” and not “at a ‘reasonable’ cost”. I believe that he was more than intelligent enough to know the difference, and that he was quite deliberate in that.

As long as there is a drop of blood in my body THEY WON’T STOP ME FROM TALKING ABOUT FREEDOM. – John Diefenbaker

Freedom and liberty do not take sides. Both Liberals (Wilfrid Laurier) and Progressive Conservatives (John Diefenbaker) have spoken out fiercely in defense of freedom in Canada.

We do not want Canada to dive into the same downward spiral that other “western democracies” have.

The United States of America has eviscerated its Constitution and Bill of Rights. Do we want to imitate them and watch things go south?

In the UK, David Cameron is trying to make thoughts he doesn’t agree with a crime, and has openly suggested re-education camps. Is going down that road one that will make Canadians happy campers?

Australia has criminalised journalism and free speech. Does Canada want to go down under with Australia?

I think the answer to these questions is clear. No. And a resounding NO. Why? Because…

Canada is free and FREEDOM IS ITS NATIONALITY. – Wilfrid Laurier

While ignoring people’s fundamental freedoms, liberties, and Natural Rights certainly makes many tasks much easier, that isn’t what Canada is about.

Certainly there are difficulties in not violating people’s freedoms, liberties, or Natural Rights, but simply because a job is difficult is no reason to strip people of those liberties. It is the job of government to protect and defend our liberty “at all cost”. Our liberty is not a bargaining chip; that a job is difficult is no reason to ask us to sacrifice even the tiniest amount of liberty.

If I may return to John Diefenbaker:

A Canada, united from Coast to Coast, wherein there will be freedom for the individual, freedom of enterprise and where there will be a Government which, in all its actions, will remain the servant and not the master of the people.

However difficult the job of the intelligence service, and however difficult the job of elected (or unelected) officials, that difficulty is no excuse to even think about asking Canadians to sacrifice any of their freedoms. It is our nationality. And it’s not for sale.

I do hope that you will consider the above, and take it with you as you perform your duties as a Minister to Parliament in Ottawa.

There are about 10 cops hanging around while the poor fellow is murdered by cops.

What could anyone do to save him? If there were only 3 cops, someone might stand a chance. But what would they have to do? Pull the armed thugs off of the man? That wouldn’t end well.

About the only reasonable thing someone could do to save the man is to pull out a firearm and quickly kill each of the violent thugs. Given that they wear body armour, head shots would probably be a good idea. If you don’t get them quick enough, you are pretty much guaranteed that they’ll kill you. If you’re going to stop 1 of them, you need to stop them all. They’re pack animals.

But that would be the end of their life. Anyone who saved that man would be tracked down and punished with a demonic vengeance. Defending people against the state is not something that the state will ever tolerate.

With 10 violent gang members around, it’s unlikely that a single person could save that man.

I suppose that people video the cops murdering people in the hopes that the judicial system prosecutes them for murder. That doesn’t happen. But there is always hope.

But it seems like Anti-state.com is no longer maintained, and the essay may disappear at some point. I’m mirroring it here to ensure that it is available in at least 1 other place. When the “anti-state.com” graphic logo is gone, then you’ll know that it’s disappeared.

This essay is an excellent read for anyone looking to learn a bit more about Jesus, Christianity, or anarchism. You don’t need to be religious to get a lot out of this essay, and you don’t need to be an anarchist to get a lot out of it.

As a side note, anyone interested in the occult will get some pretty deep insight here. I should also note that those with a superficial understanding of the occult will likely not understand that last sentence in the least. (“Occult” means “hidden”, and Redford strips away some superficial occult layers in this essay.)

Those who are more serious about reading and understanding might do well to read along with a KJV at the ready. Please note that there is a reference in the essay that appears to be a typo.

The complete essay is available at the bottom of this page as a zipped download.

Jesus Is an Anarchist

(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is–otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

“It’s no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves,” Yi Gang, a deputy governor at the central bank, said in a speech organized by China Economists 50 Forum at Tsinghua University yesterday.

With China buying less American debt, the “good times” for the US are coming to an end. This decreased demand for the USD will cascade down into the ranks of the poor and middle classes and wreak havoc as all financial crises do.

As the dollar loses value, prices will begin to rise. Keep in mind that real inflation is much higher than government reports due to how they manipulate the inflation calculation methodology. Here are a couple charts from Shadow Stats that illustrate the disparity:

The question now is how much value will the USD lose now that its single largest buyer is no longer going to be buying?

We are looking at the start of the end for the USD. It’s been losing purchasing power for a century now with less than 4% of the value it had 100 years ago. Inflation numbers have been hidden from most people through manipulated methods, and now are poised for a massive acceleration as the USD is on the verge of dropping into free-fall.

In a recent Keiser Report, Max Keiser warned that we’re on the edge of seeing a 30-year bond bubble pop. With US bonds being one of the largest out there, and demand for them drying up as China backs off and the Fed hints at tapering their Quantitative Easing money printers, it looks like the needle is getting closer.

I’m very curious as to how the US dollar collapse will play out. If it’s anything like the Asian currency crisis in 1997/1998, we’ll see this disease spread the same way. The Canadian CAD, the United Kingdom GBP, the Swiss CHF, the Japanese JPY, the Australian AUD, and the European EUR will all suffer as each of those countries has been printing money similarly to how the American have.

With Canada linked at the hip through it being the US’s largest trading partner, I expect to see the devastation hit Canada first. This might not play out like that though as Canada’s banks are rumoured to be relatively stable. Perhaps the toxic debt may cascade elsewhere first. But that won’t stop the massive hit Canada will take in terms of trade when the US can no longer afford to purchase goods from Canada.

This is going to hurt. A lot of people are going to pay dearly for supporting their criminal governments and their insane spending sprees.

With any luck, we’ll see a return for the value of gold and silver, and perhaps even bitcoins. That $10,000/ozt gold and $100,000/BTC may be closer than anyone realises.

0

The topic of violence really sets a lot of people off. Those that love it, get upset when you point out that they participate and endorse it. Those that abhor violence, get testy when the topic of defense comes up.

The first of those is easily seen in any discussion of tax with a statist. Lots of those out there, and not hard to find.

The other case, where people advocate violence for defense (outside of the state), isn’t so common. But there are 2 good examples out there.

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

There really isn’t anything very controversial about what they’ve said, i.e. If the state initiates violence (aggresses) against you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself or resist that violence with violence.

If someone is trying to kill you, or attacking you and could kill you, you’re a complete moron if you refuse to use lethal force to save your own life (or that of another person).

He estimates that in the 20th century alone, about 262,000,000 people were murdered by various states/governments.

Those 262,000,000 people stand as a testament to the moral validity and moral imperative of defending yourself and/or other people with violence, and with deadly violence if necessary.

To put that somewhat into perspective, the Nazi murder of Jews represents about 2% of the total number of civilians murdered by government. About 50x more people were murdered that people never talk about.

Ignoring the topic of using violence against the state because violence is detestable, is simply irresponsible. Those that say, “it can’t happen here,” are most likely the ones that most need to discuss the topic. Larken Rose goes over the topic in detail in his video, “It Can’t Happen Here“.

The debate on the topic needs to happen. People need to think about defensive violence against the police and the state.

Nobody is saying, “Run out and kill the first cop you see.” Nobody is saying, “Kill every cop you can.” Nobody want to run around killing people. Well, that’s not really true – it appears that our governments love killing people and really get off on it, but let’s assume we’re talking about sane people – you know – voluntarists and anarchists. 😉

0

I often wonder why people ask such idiotic questions or debate such moronic issues, like legalizing gay marriage.

The state has no business telling you who you can love or who you can marry. (Let’s assume consenting adults here and not go off on the retarded statist tangent. That actually needs to be said for some people… sigh…)

I actually had to get PERMISSION from the government of Canada to marry my wife. Similarly, she needed permission as well. Huh? No. Not joking. Really.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to love anyone.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.

The state should play no part in the equation at all. It’s perverse and sick when it does.

The maximum role that any state should play is to passively accept information from people who do get married. That is, if you want to tell them, then fine. If not, then they have no business in your love life.

To allow the state to participate in basic human emotions is a gross over-step of any imaginable legitimate role. (Not that the state is legitimate, but let’s just pretend for a moment.) Even entering the debate on “gay marriage” is perverse. It lends credibility to the authority of the state to dictate who can love/marry who, which is surrendering fundamental natural rights that are so much a deep part of being human, that it is essentially surrendering your humanity to the state.

Whether or not anyone believes that it is right or wrong is entirely up to them. If you don’t want a gay marriage, hey… don’t have one. But leave other people alone to live their lives as they see fit. And don’t try to use the state to force people to conform to your whims.

Governments have no business meddling in love.

The question people should be asking is “why do we let government meddle in love?”

0

It’s stunning to see the lies and drivel in the mainstream news media. They’ve done an excellent job at distorting truth and displaying some of the most transparent lies, e.g. Secretary of State John Kerry has been a wonderful source of lies and misdirection. You can verify that by listening to just about any word that comes out of his mouth.

For some better reporting and news about what is actually happening, check out Syria Report:

However, do be aware that they are actually reporting what is going on, and that includes some graphic footage that many people will find extremely disturbing, e.g. foreign rebel fighters in Syria beheading and executing civilians.

0

I suppose that it is no shock to anyone that the rule of law died long ago in many of the modern western police states, including the United Kingdom. Now with Julian Assange granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, the UK is blatantly flaunting the fact that it is a lawless country of thugs where the rule of law is rotting in a shallow grave as the UK threatens to break 2 international treaties.

But to find out that the rule of law was murdered so long ago? Yes. The rule of law has been dead since at least 1987 when the UK passed the “Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987”. But before that, let’s look at the relevant treaty and the relevant section.

The “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961” is the treaty applicable to diplomatic missions, and specifies the terms for the “premises” of a diplomatic mission, i.e. the embassy. (You can find the original here [PDF].) Article 22 reads:

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

This is perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity. However, “inviolable” is a strong word that the UK government apparently may not understand. Perhaps English is a second language for them, in which case they may be excused.

The “Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987” can be found here. Part 1, section 1 (Aquisition and loss by land of diplomatic or consular status.), subsection 3 reads:

In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—

(a) a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or
(b) the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,

it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

Essentially, that means that any diplomatic mission (embassy) in the UK has no diplomatic status if they “don’t feel like it” or “change their mind”. That is not any kind of law. You cannot simply make a law that you get to decide when and/or if it is enacted. This is a fundamental violation of the rule of law.

Further, the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961” is a treaty to which the UK is a party. They will be breaking this treaty if they revoke the status of the Ecuadorian embassy, because diplomatic missions are “inviolable”.

Article 56 of the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)” reads:

Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

Has the UK given all 111 party countries and 15 signatories notice? If not, then they’re breaking the treaty.

But if the UK breaks the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961”, then it necessarily breaks the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)”. I think that’s called “getting two birds stoned at once“.

Ecuador is perfectly within their rights to grant asylum to Julian Assange. The UK is not within its rights to violate a sovereign nation. Not that it stopped it in Afghanistan or Iraq or Argentina or… Well, you get the picture.

0

The fundamental, basic attitudes in the current GOP candidates are flawed right from the start. They see the people as slaves to do their bidding, rather than government as the servant of the people. Rick Santorum illustrates this ideology:

We need someone who will… motivate the American public to do its duty. (Source)

So, the people need to do their duty? What about the government? This is a fundamentally flawed outlook that I don’t think anyone can really support, except for those that want to be slaves.

“Motivate”? I wonder if he meant “force”. “To do its duty”? I wonder if he meant “into slavery”.

The only legitimate state is the state that serves its people. Whenever those roles are reversed, it is the DUTY of the people to revolt and overthrow the state.

This is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is to keep a degree of power, in the form of potential violence, in the hands of the people so that they have the ability to overthrow an oppressive state, a state that demands that the people serve the state.